Poll Shows 29% of Americans Believe Armed Revolution May Become Necessary - Atheist Nexus2017-08-18T05:13:23Zhttp://atheistnexus.org/forum/topics/poll-shows-29-of-americans-believe-armed-revolution-may-become?commentId=2182797%3AComment%3A2245555&x=1&feed=yes&xn_auth=noJohn:
"It denies both Congres…tag:atheistnexus.org,2013-06-05:2182797:Comment:22455552013-06-05T04:58:21.256Ztom sarbeckhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/TomSarbeck
<p>John:</p>
<blockquote><p>"It denies both Congress and the Judicial branch their traditional powers of checks and balances."</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It's true that in this age of nuclear/biological war, Congress has abdicated their authority.</p>
<p>During the Korean War President Truman, to prevent a labor action that would slow the flow of weapons to the war zone, ordered a government takeover of, as I recall, a US Steel Company plant in Ohio. His action was challenged and the US Supreme Court…</p>
<p>John:</p>
<blockquote><p>"It denies both Congress and the Judicial branch their traditional powers of checks and balances."</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It's true that in this age of nuclear/biological war, Congress has abdicated their authority.</p>
<p>During the Korean War President Truman, to prevent a labor action that would slow the flow of weapons to the war zone, ordered a government takeover of, as I recall, a US Steel Company plant in Ohio. His action was challenged and the US Supreme Court ruled that he had exceeded his powers.</p>
<p>During the Civil War, President Lincoln ordered an offender to be given a military trial. The US Supreme Court ruled that while civilian courts are functioning, Lincoln had exceeded his powers.</p>
<p></p> I highly recommend reading ex…tag:atheistnexus.org,2013-06-04:2182797:Comment:22452112013-06-04T15:39:28.028ZDr. Allan H. Clarkhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/DrAllanHClark
<blockquote><p>I highly recommend reading executive order 13603 (3), if you have the time. It is only about 5 pages long, and is among the most disturbing pieces of legislation you'll ever read.</p>
<p></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Executive Orders are administrative acts of the President and one of the problems with them is that they are <span style="text-decoration: underline;">not</span> legislation, not rules established by the Congress and representing public desires, but absolute fiat which is…</p>
<blockquote><p>I highly recommend reading executive order 13603 (3), if you have the time. It is only about 5 pages long, and is among the most disturbing pieces of legislation you'll ever read.</p>
<p></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Executive Orders are administrative acts of the President and one of the problems with them is that they are <span style="text-decoration: underline;">not</span> legislation, not rules established by the Congress and representing public desires, but absolute fiat which is supposed to conform to limits set by legislation. The Presidency has grown in power with respect to national security and Congress has abdicated its authority for declaring war.</p>
<p>As everyone knows but often forgets, Congress began to surrender its war powers with the advent of nuclear weapons at the end of World War II. The idea was to give the executive branch authority for quick response. The United States came out of the war with enormous advantages both militarily and economically and was determined to preserve its double hegemony at all costs.</p>
<p>Keeping a national security threat prominent in the public consciousness serves two distinct but related conservative aims: it allows the government to engage in military actions as it pleases, claiming that as its primary responsibility and to contain or reduce its responsibilities for social programs as too expensive in a period of such great insecurity requiring great military expenditures.</p>
<p></p> I think that the idea of a wa…tag:atheistnexus.org,2013-06-04:2182797:Comment:22451092013-06-04T12:01:13.059ZChristopher Phillipshttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/ChristopherPhillips
<p>I think that the idea of a war on an abstract noun rather than a nation state is ludicrous, an outpouring of bullshit from Bush Minor, and the tragedy is that the current incumbent of the presidency has been hamstrung by the republican regressives. If a revolution is justified, it is justified to eliminate the undue influence of major corporations over the good of the people.</p>
<p>I think that the idea of a war on an abstract noun rather than a nation state is ludicrous, an outpouring of bullshit from Bush Minor, and the tragedy is that the current incumbent of the presidency has been hamstrung by the republican regressives. If a revolution is justified, it is justified to eliminate the undue influence of major corporations over the good of the people.</p> US military spending could be…tag:atheistnexus.org,2013-06-04:2182797:Comment:22452632013-06-04T11:48:26.979ZJohn Camillihttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/JohnCamilli
<p>US military spending could be cut by 85% and we would still have the most expensive military in the world.</p>
<p></p>
<p>And before calling people who favor armed conflict uneducated, you should have a gander at executive order 13603 and the 2012 NDAA. I tend to think the stuff about new world orders and forced population control are hyperbolic, but the rhetoric about martial law in the US and the trampling of constitutional liberties is very much on the mark. Especially from 13603. That…</p>
<p>US military spending could be cut by 85% and we would still have the most expensive military in the world.</p>
<p></p>
<p>And before calling people who favor armed conflict uneducated, you should have a gander at executive order 13603 and the 2012 NDAA. I tend to think the stuff about new world orders and forced population control are hyperbolic, but the rhetoric about martial law in the US and the trampling of constitutional liberties is very much on the mark. Especially from 13603. That piece of legislation does more to dismantle the constitution than anything else in our history. Not trying to be a jerk, but if you haven't read it, then you have no business calling other people ignorant.</p>
<p></p>
<p>It's only about 5 pages. Have a look, and then tell me if you think people are still up in arms over nothing. Pay close attention to the part where it says "during peacetime or times of national emergency." Also pay attention to what it says about the executive branch having the authority to regulate the economy, and what it says about the use of biological weapons. And keep in consideration while you read it that every single official being granted power in that order, including the authority to determine when and to what extent it is used, is a member of the executive branch. It denies both Congress and the Judicial branch their traditional powers of checks and balances.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/16/executive-order-national-defense-resources-preparedness">http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/16/executive-ord...</a></p> The United States is actually…tag:atheistnexus.org,2013-06-04:2182797:Comment:22452592013-06-04T11:47:26.047ZJohn Camillihttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/JohnCamilli
<p>The United States is actually in a permanent state of martial law right now, and has been since the signing of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, which declared the US "a battleground for the war on terror...for as long as the war on terror continues." It overruled Posse Commitatus, which forbade military jurisdiction on domestic soil. It also overruled Habeus Corpus and due process, as well as the 4th amendment.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Executive Order 13603 compounded the problem by…</p>
<p>The United States is actually in a permanent state of martial law right now, and has been since the signing of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, which declared the US "a battleground for the war on terror...for as long as the war on terror continues." It overruled Posse Commitatus, which forbade military jurisdiction on domestic soil. It also overruled Habeus Corpus and due process, as well as the 4th amendment.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Executive Order 13603 compounded the problem by granting the executive branch the right to forcibly seize resources, including forced human labor, during peacetime (it explicitly says this in the document, on whitehouse.goc), without congressional approval, and not subjectable to judicial review. Those two powers by Congress and the Judicial branch are essential to the system of checks and balances in our government, and they effectively constitute a cecession of the executive branch from the authorities of the other two branches.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The ONLY aspect of traditional examples of martial law not currently being utilized is the power of law enforcers to deputize the citizenry, which of course the executive branch would not desire to use when THEY are the ones waging war against the american people. It would only be useful against foreign invasion, when law enforcers are running in short order and the help of the citizenry is desired. But every other aspect of martial law is currently being implemented throughout the United States. The only reason it doesn't seem like it is because you haven't tried to rise up against your government yet. But, rest assured, if you do, you will see exactly how militant our current situation is.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>A lot of people DO tend to get hyperbolic about the tyranny of the government, new world orders, and all of that, but in the case of martial law, they are correct. We are in martial law. But don't take my word for it. Read the NDAA and executive order 13603.</p> Quite a few rights are curren…tag:atheistnexus.org,2013-06-04:2182797:Comment:22450112013-06-04T11:29:09.542ZJohn Camillihttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/JohnCamilli
<p>Quite a few rights are currently being threatened or have already been overruled with unconstitutional legislation.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The 2012 &amp; 2013 National Defense Authorization Act grants the executive branch the authority to detain citizens on ground of being "belligerent" - a term which the executive branch expressly refused to define in the face of Congressional inquiry. If they decide you are beligerent, you can be detained without probable cause, without charges, denied access to…</p>
<p>Quite a few rights are currently being threatened or have already been overruled with unconstitutional legislation.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The 2012 &amp; 2013 National Defense Authorization Act grants the executive branch the authority to detain citizens on ground of being "belligerent" - a term which the executive branch expressly refused to define in the face of Congressional inquiry. If they decide you are beligerent, you can be detained without probable cause, without charges, denied access to an attorney, denied a trial, and held indefinietly for "as long as the war on terror continues." In a recent Senate hearing, a spokesperson for the Pentagon - assistant secretary of defense Michael Sheehan - stated that the war on terror may last indefinitely, and probably at least 10 to 20 more years (1). In 2012, Obama released a signing statement saying that the indefinite detention clause would not be used on american citizens, but the statement was a worthless placation because the first action taken for "belligerent" persons is to strip them of citizenship and treat them as hostile enemy combatants, so if the indefinite detention authority is used on you, you are already not a citizen anymore. This is all in the bill and can easily be found at innumerable legal websites now.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The NDAA also overules Posse Commitatus - which forbids military jurisdiction on domestic soil - by categorizing the United States as "a battleground for the war on terror."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Another piece of legislation which takes away fundamental rights is the 2012 National Defense Resource Preparedness Executive Order (order 13603), which grants authority to the executive branch to seize any resources deemed necessary for the continuity of government (including forced human labor), "in peacetime or times of national emergency," without Congressional approval, and not subjectable to judicial review. The order is an extensive amendment to the 1950 Defense Production Act, which authorized the seizure of resources during wartime, after congressional approval. That order overrules the 4th amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure, and was used to legalize the forced removal, at gunpoint, of people from their homes after the Boston marathon bombing (they could also have used the "Constitution Free Zone" authority in a recent immigration reform bill, which suspends 4th amendment rights anywhere within 100 miles of US borders, and keep in mind that 2/3rds of the country's population lives within 100 miles of the border). 13603 also grants the executive branch the right to regulate the economy as a preparatory measure for potential emergencies. They can force people to develop certain products, force them to make those products available to the government, regulate prices, etc. And remember, they can do this all in peacetime, without congressional approval. In short...fascism. The very definition of fascism.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Moreover, Citizens United has made it virtually impossible to overturn unconstitutional legislation by categorizing money as "political free speech." Since 2008, when CU was signed, candidates who spend more money on their election campaign win their election 85-93% of the time (2). An overwhelming statistical correlation that makes it impossible to deny that money now buys political power, which in turn buys legislative results. And since more than 65% of this nation's wealth rests with less than 5% of its populace, there is literally no way for the majority to shout louder than the financially elite minority. They will always have a bigger voice now, no matter how many of us cry out against them. They have bought the government, making peaceful, legal recourse a dead end.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I could go on for a while like this, but those two pieces of legislation are two of the biggest threats to our constitutionally guaranteed liberties. I highly recommend reading executive order 13603 (3), if you have the time. It is only about 5 pages long, and is among the most disturbing pieces of legislation you'll ever read.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>1. <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/17/endless-war-on-terror-obama" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/17/endless-war-on-...</a></p>
<p>2. <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/oct/17/occupy-wall-street/occupy-wall-street-protesters-sign-says-94-percent/">http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/oct/17/occu...</a></p>
<p>3. <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/16/executive-order-national-defense-resources-preparedness" rel="nofollow">http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/16/executive-ord...</a></p> One of the advantages of acad…tag:atheistnexus.org,2013-06-03:2182797:Comment:22450232013-06-03T16:56:35.189ZDr. Allan H. Clarkhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/DrAllanHClark
<p>One of the advantages of academic life is that is forces you to become a citizen of the world through travel and exchange of viewpoints in your area of expertise. You are faced with the fact that many of your colleagues speak a different language. It is amazingly good for you to recognize the differences in nationalities while at the same time sharing common interests.</p>
<p>I remember a case where a young man from an African country with a repressive government, after finishing a Ph.D.,…</p>
<p>One of the advantages of academic life is that is forces you to become a citizen of the world through travel and exchange of viewpoints in your area of expertise. You are faced with the fact that many of your colleagues speak a different language. It is amazingly good for you to recognize the differences in nationalities while at the same time sharing common interests.</p>
<p>I remember a case where a young man from an African country with a repressive government, after finishing a Ph.D., returned home where he was subjected to political threats. A group of mathematicians organized a fake conference in the United States to which he was invited and given a round trip ticket purchased by his colleagues so he could defect and probably save his life.</p> Bentham, if I understand corr…tag:atheistnexus.org,2013-06-03:2182797:Comment:22450192013-06-03T16:47:23.786ZDr. Allan H. Clarkhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/DrAllanHClark
<p>Bentham, if I understand correctly, did share a view similar to Bork's, but not quite identical to Biden's statement of Bork's view. Bentham thought rights were created by law, that they did not exist prior to codification, but law might come from a monarch as his command or from a legislature through its enactments or perhaps even from the judiciary as an interpretation of existing codes.</p>
<p>He viewed statements of natural rights as wishful thinking, an expression of desired or…</p>
<p>Bentham, if I understand correctly, did share a view similar to Bork's, but not quite identical to Biden's statement of Bork's view. Bentham thought rights were created by law, that they did not exist prior to codification, but law might come from a monarch as his command or from a legislature through its enactments or perhaps even from the judiciary as an interpretation of existing codes.</p>
<p>He viewed statements of natural rights as wishful thinking, an expression of desired or desirable rights, which might not exist in a particular place and time.</p> Americans travelling to Europ…tag:atheistnexus.org,2013-06-03:2182797:Comment:22445542013-06-03T00:12:31.629ZChristopher Phillipshttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/ChristopherPhillips
Americans travelling to Europe are often observed to have the most bizarre and parochial of outlooks, almost as though they were unaware of the continent that is Europe. Yes Americans are often disliked and even despised for this, and I remember the war time snippet of "over paid, over sexed and over here" although these days it would be "over egoed, over weight and over here".<br />
This is not to say that all states have really negative stereotypes of each other, and I couldn't stop my self from…
Americans travelling to Europe are often observed to have the most bizarre and parochial of outlooks, almost as though they were unaware of the continent that is Europe. Yes Americans are often disliked and even despised for this, and I remember the war time snippet of "over paid, over sexed and over here" although these days it would be "over egoed, over weight and over here".<br />
This is not to say that all states have really negative stereotypes of each other, and I couldn't stop my self from buying a book entitled "1000 years of annoying the French"! Way back in 1988, President R…tag:atheistnexus.org,2013-06-02:2182797:Comment:22444432013-06-02T09:21:24.357Ztom sarbeckhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/TomSarbeck
<p>Way back in 1988, President Reagan nominated Federal Judge Robert Bork to the US Supreme Court. One of the many attorneys who attended the <strong>televised</strong> <strong>week-long Senate Judiciary Committee hearing</strong> on his nomination described it as the best constitutional law course he took. I viewed all but about fifteen minutes of the hearing.</p>
<p>In closing, Committee Chair Senator Joseph Biden described his and Judge Bork's differing views on rights in approximately these…</p>
<p>Way back in 1988, President Reagan nominated Federal Judge Robert Bork to the US Supreme Court. One of the many attorneys who attended the <strong>televised</strong> <strong>week-long Senate Judiciary Committee hearing</strong> on his nomination described it as the best constitutional law course he took. I viewed all but about fifteen minutes of the hearing.</p>
<p>In closing, Committee Chair Senator Joseph Biden described his and Judge Bork's differing views on rights in approximately these words: <em>I believe the people have all the rights except those they give up to live in society. Judge Bork believes the people have only the rights the government gives them.</em></p>
<p>I agree with then-Senator Biden's view of rights, but in one sense Judge Bork was correct; rights exist only if the government has the resources to enforce them.</p>
<p>Unless Bentham's view was similar to Judge Bork's, his words <em>nonsense on stilts</em> are nonsense.</p>
<p></p>